Is the Oil Industry REALLY aginst Kyoto?

[Keepitsimple]

There truly is a Leftist view of the world - I'm not really talking about mainstream Liberals - although there is a "Left" within the Liberal Party that can relate and even embrace the following issue....and that is a Socialistic view of the world - a massive redistribution of wealth...a view that certain countries have too much and other countries have too little. Kyoto is a shining example of the Left in action. I don't really think that there is a "conspiracy" per se...it's just that people of this ilk are true-believers and will shape the "facts" to suit their ends. I think for the most part, they don't even realize it because they believe their intentions are so rightcheous, so correct, just so damn sensible. The problem with their approach is that no good can ever come from lies or put more gently, the distortion of facts. Unfortunately, these socialistic viewpoints, which manifest themselves in many ways, tend to be supported by a significant number of University professors (90% vote Liberal) and the media, among others.

So consider this: notwithstanding the gravy train that propels Kyoto, no matter what we do, we'll be burning fossil fuels for a very long time - we're not going to get rid of our furnaces or cars anytime soon.....however the price will go up as pressure is put on the Oil Companies to get "cleaner" - so what do they really care? They'll just pass on any extra costs to the consumer. Now...about those windmills, fuel cells, solar power, tide power, and whatever....once they are proven effective in making a profit, who's going to invest and build them? Why the Oil, Gas and Electric companies - that's who. So the fact that "The oil companies are funding the skeptics" to deny Global Warming is baloney. They may be funding some of them - but as you can see, they win either way. One could make a solid argument that the oil industry is actually in favour of Kyoto because it puts upward pressure on oil prices and creates other opportunities.

My own thought has always been that Climate Science is important and we need to understand it better so we can adapt to Climate Change - perhaps even embrace some of the positive elements. Substantial and meaningful ninvestments in Climate Science should be made, we should let the science continue to evolve, and we should deal with all the facts, even if they don't nicely fit the theory-of-the-day. Science and "consensus" make for strange bedfellows. It only takes one correct scientist to disprove a consensus - especially one driven by a politically motivated organization like the UN/IPCC.